Ground Zero — an American Tragedy, Not a Christian Opportunity

For the record, yes, we oppose (as we always have) the inclusion of the WTC Cross in the WTC Memorial & Museum in NYC, and are now plaintiffs in a lawsuit for it’s removal (or, alternately, atheist inclusion into the memorial).

As you may remember, the buildings were made from girders crossing each other, and in the rubble some Christians found a pair of girders still welded that closely (not exactly, but closely enough) resemble a Christian Roman Cross.

The cross has become a Christian icon. It has been blessed by so-called holy men a few times, and presented as a reminder that God, in his infinite power of goodness, who couldn’t be bothered to stop the Muslim terrorists, or stop the fire, or hold up the buildings to stop 3000 people from being crushed, cared enough to bestow upon us some rubble that resembles a cross. Ridiculous.

This cross is set to be included in the official WTC Museum. No other religions or philosophies will be honored. It will just be a Christian icon, in the middle of OUR (as in Americans) museum. This will not happen without a fight.

Wrong. I’m pretty sure it is not an important symbol to Jews, Muslims, atheists and others who were equally traumatized, except maybe as an important reminder that their faith tradition or lack of one makes them less important.

The “cross” was found among the rubble, and it did provide some manner of comfort to those relief workers and construction workers on the Pile and throughout the clearing of Ground Zero. It took on religious implications, but it was also a found object among the millions of tons of debris. As such, it holds significance as a religious and a historical symbol of the aftermath of the attacks.

Fighting the inclusion of this particular object, just because it also has religious implications is a misguided one - and will only add to the costs to get the long delayed project opened.

Oh Randall sounds like you got a real hardon for God , you are indeed the quintessential atheist . Now if you were objective , I may pay attention to your rants , but since you chose to be subjective and add your little doxology , ” your group ” should just keep their nose out of the matter . If the people of NYC dont mind , and atheists are in no way a meaningful minority if that , maybe your group should sit this one out and avoid making total assholes out of yourselves .

Oh Randall sounds like you got a real hardon for God , you are indeed the quintessential atheist . Now if you were objective , I may pay attention to your rants , but since you chose to be subjective and add your little doxology , ” your group ” should just keep their nose out of the matter . If the people of NYC dont mind , and atheists are in no way a meaningful minority if that , maybe your group should sit this one out and avoid making total assholes out of yourselves .

Rants? I’ve been here since late 2008 and never once seen Randall tear into a rant.

The girders were still visible when I moved down here 8 years ago. Never really bothered me. It looked better in the middle of the then-emptied pit than it did when they moved it to the church up the street.

I understand opposition if it’s being included as a Christian symbol, as opposed to a relic from the destruction, but I’m more concerned with keeping Bibles out of public schools, honestly.

You lost me totally on the yoga thing, Randall, but on this issue I’m with you. The WTC was not a church, and the people in the tragedy were not all Christian. Putting up a pair of girders that closely resembles a Christian cross is to me, as a native New Yorker, personally offensive.

If a nearby church wants to keep it as a memorial, then fine. As part of a publicly funded memorial, then no.

“The cross has become a Christian icon. It has been blessed by so-called holy men a few times, and presented as a reminder that God, in his infinite power of goodness, who couldn’t be bothered to stop the Muslim terrorists, or stop the fire, or hold up the buildings to stop 3000 people from being crushed, cared enough to bestow upon us some rubble that resembles a cross. Ridiculous.”

“The cross has become a Christian icon. It has been blessed by so-called holy men a few times, and presented as a reminder that God, in his infinite power of goodness, who couldn’t be bothered to stop the Muslim terrorists, or stop the fire, or hold up the buildings to stop 3000 people from being crushed, cared enough to bestow upon us some rubble that resembles a cross. Ridiculous.”

….sounds like a rant to me .

It’s still true.
Besides, I bet if I went through the rubble I could find debris that resembles other religion’s holy symbols. Should we include those too?
This is a public memorial, keep religion out of it.

No problem there , why the rant ? Why denigrate a religion with Gross’ remarks ? They were subjective …and make him look like an idiot . Being atheist doesn’t give anyone the right to belittle the religious beliefs of others ?
What’s the matter with saying it’s a religious symbol ,and it shouldn’t be there ,being a Federally funded project . What was the purpose of Gross inserting his biased opinion ?
When this goes to court , do you think Gross and his group will bring up those remarks in their argument ? It becomes unclear whether Gross is protesting the symbol claiming it religious or the people’s belief of what it represents ?

No problem there , why the rant ? Why denigrate a religion with Gross’ remarks ? They were subjective …and make him look like an idiot . Being atheist doesn’t give anyone the right to belittle the religious beliefs of others ?
What’s the matter with saying it’s a religious symbol ,and it shouldn’t be there ,being a Federally funded project . What was the purpose of Gross inserting his biased opinion ?
When this goes to court , do you think Gross and his group will bring up those remarks in their argument ? It becomes unclear whether Gross is protesting the symbol claiming it religious or the people’s belief of what it represents ?

Those weren’t Randall’s remarks, which you’d know if you bothered noting the block quote background and clicking on the link.

Oh, and please, there are no spaces between a word and then a comma or a period or a question mark.

Once again you decide it’s ok to trample the constitutional rights of others in the name of your favored religion. Constitutionally it doesn’t matter that atheists are a small group, or that Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Muslims, etc. etc. are minorities.

I’m not against religion in the public space, as long as people are inclusive. The people calling to put the cross into the museum would fight tooth and nail against a Crescent for instance, and if you want to put religious symbols in the museum then you need to be willing to include them all, and atheists too.

It’s still true.
Besides, I bet if I went through the rubble I could find debris that resembles other religion’s holy symbols. Should we include those too?
This is a public memorial, keep religion out of it.

Had they, at that time, come to bear a similar significance besides just their religious value, have at it, as far as I’m concerned (by all means, the more the merrier!).
This thing has historic value related to that site simply because of the amount of interest it generated (and still generates) - ‘banning’ it (or whatever) just because it’s a specific religious item is as ridiculous as giving special treatment to one religion in particular, IMO.
Sure, the chances of an item from another religion gaining such significance is slim in this instance (simple issue of demographics), but that doesn’t mean this one isn’t historically relevant.
Hell, I was, what, 12 at that time? I remember a lot of people attributing some significance directly related to the events in question to that thing.
Do you have to agree with that? no, of course not. But arguing this is just an issue of religious imagery as opposed to something relevant to this memorial is insincere, IMO.
“Atheïst inclusion into the memorial”? well, sure. Include contributions from every last single significant demographic involved in a memorial as far as I’m concerned - that would be the ideal message on that site as far as I’m concerned.
However, the way they phrase it, again, argues this as a religious symbolism issue - which is only incidental to the actual point.
It feels similar to such groups arguing for the removal of WWI/WWII memorials from public land IMO - not an issue of equal rights as much as a pissing contest.

Being atheist doesn’t give anyone the right to belittle the religious beliefs of others ?

Atheists get shit all the time from some Christians…being told that the country is in the shape it’s in because of their godlessness, that they are going to hell, that they have no morals, etc. Spare me.

However, the way they phrase it, again, argues this as a religious symbolism issue - which is only incidental to the actual point.

What a strange point. This “cross” is miscellaneous rubble that happens to be shaped like a geometric religious symbol (of torture, which creeps me out all by itself). If it was not a religious symbol then it would have no more meaning than any other of the thousands of tons of rubble that remained of the WTC. Of course this is a religious symbolism issue - it can’t be anything else.

What a strange point. This “cross” is miscellaneous rubble that happens to be shaped like a geometric religious symbol (of torture, which creeps me out all by itself). If it was not a religious symbol then it would have no more meaning than any other of the thousands of tons of rubble that remained of the WTC. Of course this is a religious symbolism issue - it can’t be anything else.

I’m not saying it’s not a religious symbol *as well*, I’m saying that’s not it’s primary function here at all (anymore).
Sure, lots of people flocked to that thing because of that religious connection. At that point however, it was becoming relevant for it’s place in the chain of events much more than the single fact it’s shaped like a cross.
The problem with an argument that because it’s also/still a religious symbol as well it shouldn’t have a place in a memorial such as this is that you’d have to excise everything with a religious subtext from every kind of public school history book as well. Do we teach the crusades, to name something, because of religious values? Certainly not. Although they were primarily religiously inspired (and would not have existed in sufficiently similar form if not for said religion) they became historically relevant on their own.
Why teach about the reformation (and certain parts of Lutheran doctrine inherent in such a lesson) when it’s obviously a totally religious thing? Simple: it became historically relevant because of the influence and prominence it has in relevant pieces of history.
Same here: this thing was relevant and prominent enough in the events at hand that it has significant historical value in connection with a memorial for those events.
I’m not proposing this should be placed as a religious item (although it might well be to some visitors however you place it, but that’s beside the point) but very much as something of historical significance to that memorial.
I do believe it is supposed to be halfway between a monument and a museum, right?

The “cross” was found among the rubble, and it did provide some manner of comfort to those relief workers and construction workers on the Pile and throughout the clearing of Ground Zero. It took on religious implications, but it was also a found object among the millions of tons of debris. As such, it holds significance as a religious and a historical symbol of the aftermath of the attacks.

Fighting the inclusion of this particular object, just because it also has religious implications is a misguided one - and will only add to the costs to get the long delayed project opened.

There would have been countless objects of all sizes composed of one piece of material crossing another, and I dare say some bent into a crescent shape as well. This attempt to claim Christian ownership of a national tragedy is just another part of the countless other efforts to claim Christian ownership of the USA.

Those who want to use a piece of rubble symbolically could easily have chosen any other abstract shape to be an all inclusive symbol.

If they want to pray to their god in memory of this event (however they choose to justify it) then they could easily take the “cross” to a nearby church and be welcome to pray under it there.

On this, that group should just shut up. The 9/11 Cross is an important symbol of overcoming the trauma of that day, and those trying to force it out are being assholes.

On this the group should just shut up? So you’re calling for a blanket ban on any judicial redress? Sounds like religious tyranny to me. Look, you don’t have to like what they’re doing, but they have every right under the United States constitution to seek legal redress. That’s not how things operate in this country.

I found the cross thing creepy, as I always do with weird shit like this. I don’t get what the message is supposed to be. Sure, 3000 people died in fear and pain but Christ saved them from their sins (as long as they did X or whatever) so it’s all cool?

You do the same as Gross . Protest the fact that its is a religious symbol on Fed. Property . Why do you find it necessary to denigrate the belief system , to which the symbol belongs . Again …you would not m,ake those remarks in a lawsuit to have it removed .

If you are an atheist , then your position is simple , there is no god , therefore a religious symbol on public property offends you. Fine , I get it .Leave your opinion of the dogmas or religious iconic figures out of your argument .
Your concerns about whether it makes a religion look bad are facetious .

You do the same as Gross . Protest the fact that its is a religious symbol on Fed. Property . Why do you find it necessary to denigrate the belief system , to which the symbol belongs . Again …you would not m,ake those remarks in a lawsuit to have it removed .

If you are an atheist , then your position is simple , there is no god , therefore a religious symbol on public property offends you. Fine , I get it .Leave your opinion of the dogmas or religious iconic figures out of your argument .
Your concerns about whether it makes a religion look bad are facetious .

It has nothing to do with being “offended” and everything to do with the fact that we don’t use taxpayer money to fund symbols for one particular religion.

Great , so you being an idiot of the same fashion , kinda evens things out ?
Christians give you shit ? And you give christians shit ? A third grade spitball fight . Some Muslims will kill you for that . NOW what do you do ?
Just stick to the only legitimate argument you have ..a religious symbol on public property . Whatever dogmas are associated with the symbol are irrelevent in any adult argument , the issue is singular , a religious symbol on public property . I’m in agreement , i think if the “cross is to be kept there , it should be turned on it’s side to look like an X , or altered to such a degree where it no longer presents an offense as a cross/crucifix a religious symbol , but merely for what it is ….A Remnant of a day ,in which 3000 lives were lost and of the buildings destroyed which once stood there , that were intentionally destroyed by An Act Of Man .

Great , so you being an idiot of the same fashion , kinda evens things out ?
Christians give you shit ? And you give christians shit ? A third grade spitball fight . Some Muslims will kill you for that . NOW what do you do ?
Just stick to the only legitimate argument you have ..a religious symbol on public property . Whatever dogmas are associated with the symbol are irrelevent in any adult argument , the issue is singular , a religious symbol on public property . I’m in agreement , i think if the “cross is to be kept there , it should be turned on it’s side to look like an X , or altered to such a degree where it no longer presents an offense as a cross/crucifix a religious symbol , but merely for what it is ….A Remnant of a day ,in which 3000 lives were lost and of buildings destroyed which once stood there , and were intentionally destroyed by An Act Of Man .

Guess what, genius. I don’t hassle Christians, even though they don’t have a problem telling me that I’m sinful, I’m going to hell, I’m the problem with this country. I don’t say a damn thing to them. I don’t belittle their religion, ever. I’m more respectful than that. Gee, whodathunkit?////

And again, you are driving me crazy with the spaces between your punctuation.

Fair enough , then just leave the criticism of any religious dogma out of it . Congrats you put it better than I could . However , listening to some of the arguments posed here , one would naturally assume in them , a tone of offense . And that is due to their inserting their personal bias into the argument .

Screw the punctuation , you got the meaning . The Trouble with many atheists , is they can’t let go of their animosity , and thus lose their objectivity…..and make asses of themselves . No one needs to know how you feel about an icon you dont believe in , it’s irrelevant….it cheapens your argument , which simply is no religious symbols on public property .
p.s. if you don’t like the punctuation -tough shit , I don’t need any of your grammar lessons to make my point .